11-22-2011, 02:00 PM
My earlier post (#21) was partly an attempt to provide a balance for the countless assertions, in this forum and others, that "image quality on the monitor doesn't matter, it's what it looks like on paper that counts". I should have made that clearer.
It also appears that I need to apologise for being so selfish and inconsiderate as to state my own photographic needs and to say such outrageous things against paper. "Inconvenient"? How could anyone have made such a mistake? It is, of course, highly convenient, as Voltaire said, in the smallest room in my house.
Am I a Nikon fanboy? Well, I do have a Nikon microscope, but my camera and lenses are all Canon.
I do hope this makes sense.
It also appears that I need to apologise for being so selfish and inconsiderate as to state my own photographic needs and to say such outrageous things against paper. "Inconvenient"? How could anyone have made such a mistake? It is, of course, highly convenient, as Voltaire said, in the smallest room in my house.
Am I a Nikon fanboy? Well, I do have a Nikon microscope, but my camera and lenses are all Canon.
I do hope this makes sense.